European Committee, 19 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 19, 2000

Official Report 292KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

The matter of the applications procedure for structural funds has arisen from comments about the information technology that is being used to process objective 3. It appears that there have been some problems, which I hope have been resolved. However, there is a more general issue about funds. Smaller organisations that have never been through the application system before find it bureaucratic and hard to understand. If we are genuine about opening up funds to as wide a market as possible, we should be examining the simplicity of the system. Unfortunately, comments suggest that, far from becoming simpler, the process is generally becoming more complicated. Using the objective 3 problem as a starting point, the committee should ask various bodies and users to comment on the funding system and see how the process could be simplified.

I support that view. I have raised that point in previous discussions about structural funds. There is a perception, although it is not validated in relation to the allocation of funds, that the usual suspects—the people who know the system—are at an advantage in making applications. That may not necessarily be the case, but that is the perception, so it would be helpful to proceed as you suggest.

How would that be processed? How would you call for views?

If the committee agrees to go down that line, our intention is to target organisations that are in receipt of those awards or are intending to apply for them and to ask for their comments. We also intend to put out a general press release calling for views from organisations that are perhaps not normally involved.

I would be happy to take suggestions from members on other ways to capture as large an audience as possible for the questions that we might ask.

As a matter of course, we would want to ask the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations whether it could circulate the information. In relation to small businesses, we would contact chambers of commerce.

We could contact higher education establishments.

Yes. We could ask them, although the evidence suggests that they have not had too many problems in accessing awards in the past. Nevertheless, their views would still be useful.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item is about getting the committee's agreement on having an initial discussion on European Union tobacco subsidies.

In recent years, there has been a growing debate about health across Europe. When we consider EU policy, subsidising tobacco growers to the tune of £800 million a year seems to run contrary to EU policy on health and education. It would be worth having an initial consideration of the matter. Irene Oldfather has raised it before and it has been raised with some organisations in relation to health. We might want to comment on the matter, to the European Commission and the Parliament.

Reforms have been attempted over several years, but they have never been terribly successful. There was a big reform of tobacco subsidies in 1992, but £720 million per annum is still spent on subsidising tobacco in the EU. The European Court of Auditors has drawn attention to the fact that the health budget to prevent tobacco-related illnesses is about 0.1 per cent of the tobacco subsidies. That is clearly a mismatch. One could argue that there are economic arguments versus moral arguments.

One of the difficulties is that one of the objectives when the system was set up was to reduce imports of tobacco into the European Union. Unfortunately, the system has not worked, because 70 to 80 per cent of tobacco that is produced in the European Union is exported and therefore goes to third-world markets. If subsidies were stopped tomorrow, tobacco consumption might not be reduced in the European Union, because most of the tobacco that is consumed in Europe is imported. However, we would address a moral dilemma because it is low-grade tobacco that is produced. There is a perverse incentive in the system. It does not matter what quality of tobacco one produces; there is the same subsidy. There is no incentive to produce—if there is such a thing—good-quality tobacco. There is an encouragement to reduce production costs and labour costs and therefore provide low-grade tobacco, which is exported to the third world. There is a moral argument that the committee might want to explore.

I suggest that we ask Irene Oldfather to prepare an issues paper and to bring that back to the committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item is amnesic shellfish poisoning European testing regulations. The Health and Community Care Committee is discussing that issue, and I recommend that we consider what, if anything, we should do on that.

You might not be aware of this, convener, but the matter is being discussed by the Standing Veterinary Committee. Susan Deacon has talked to Commissioner Byrne.

I will find out what information is available and inform the committee as soon as possible outwith the meeting. I hope that there will still be time to pull something together for our next meeting.

There has been some discussion of that issue in the Rural Affairs Committee. People are concerned about different interpretations of the regulations in different EU nations. We appear to operate the most prohibitive regime, whereas others seem to allow their industry to carry on. We need to understand the European dimension and the causes of that inconsistency.

Is the recommendation agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Members will have seen the recommendation on new working procedures, which has been circulated. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Executive about section 57 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the terms set out in the recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

The next meeting of the committee will take place two weeks today, on 3 October.

Meeting closed at 16:56.